Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids

[paddbear0000]

I'm not referring to minor mistakes, we all make those and wouldn't be human if we didn't.  I'm referring to ones that blatantly put a child in danger, like I mentioned before. Not doing these things doesn't take a whole lot of common sense.   

[vandie]

This is how it begins, slowly and surely the government starts to regulate our lives because they don't believe we have enough sense to raise our kids properly.

A lot of people don't have enough sense to raise kids--those that drink too much around them, do drugs, leave them home alone too young, leave guns laying around, leaving them in a hot car alone, not keeping an eye on them in public, do stupid shit like Brittany Spears, etc. etc. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids if you ask me.

 it would be nice if only perfect parents had kids- but then many of us would not exsist!!

So true, Glitter.

[Ken Shelmerdine]

The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.

This is the lie that the anti smoking fascists hope you won't suss because it suits their cause. And how can anyone smoking in the open air possibly be causing a health hazard? You inhale more toxicity every time you walk along a busy high street. So some people don't like the smell, well tough! Maybe some people don't like the smell of burger bars, should we ban them as well?

 Over the years movements like the anti smoking lobby, health and safety groups and animal welfare organizations have whittled away at our personal freedoms in persuit of their various agendas. They are like fanatical religious cults, intolerant of any opposition and criticism and wont be satisfied until they have reached their goals which in this case is making smoking  completely illegal.

Anyone who cares about freedom in our so called western democracies should oppose these tyrants.

[glitter]

The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.

This is the lie that the anti smoking fachists hope you won't suss because it suits their cause. And how can anyone smoking in the open air possibly be causing a health hazard? You inhale more toxicity every time you walk along a busy high street. So some people don't like the smell, well tough! Maybe some people don't like the smell of burger bars, should we ban them as well?

 Over the years movements like the anti smoking lobby, health and safety groups and animal welfare oganisations have wittled away at our personal freedoms in persuit of their various agendas. They are like fanatical religious cults, intolerant of any opposition and criticism and wont be satisfied until they have reached their goals which in this case is making smoking  completely illegal.

Anyone who cares about freedom in our so called western democracies should oppose these tyrants.

I agree with you on every point except the first one....but I am open to hearing about those studies.

[Ken Shelmerdine]

The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.

This is the lie that the anti smoking fachists hope you won't suss because it suits their cause. And how can anyone smoking in the open air possibly be causing a health hazard? You inhale more toxicity every time you walk along a busy high street. So some people don't like the smell, well tough! Maybe some people don't like the smell of burger bars, should we ban them as well?

 Over the years movements like the anti smoking lobby, health and safety groups and animal welfare oganisations have wittled away at our personal freedoms in persuit of their various agendas. They are like fanatical religious cults, intolerant of any opposition and criticism and wont be satisfied until they have reached their goals which in this case is making smoking  completely illegal.



Anyone who cares about freedom in our so called western democracies should oppose these tyrants.

I agree with you on every point except the first one....but I am open to hearing about those studies.

http://www.forestonline.org/output/page16.asp

[Sluff]

It upsets me that the Government is taking our rights away everyday and it is very clear with this smoking ban. I agree we need to do what is best for our children, and if parents made the right choices, the government wouldn't have to step in.

[JBLadyB]

That upsets me too.  I already have too many people  telling me what I can't and can do.  It is not that I am against protecting our children, I am still a momma bear with her cub and grandcubs.  I think so much is taken away from us we need control over some things, The right to say yes or no.  When I was younger, I always hated the "Don't do what I do, do what I tell you".  You can guess which one I always picked.  I am really rambling here, but you get the picture. Mel

[goofynina]

In all honesty, i think this law is a good one (for the kids sake) I had a friend in North Carolina who smoked with her kids in the car and her kids have ASTHMA? WTF?  Somewhere, somehow, someone needs to give these kids a voice if their parents arent going to listen. 

[BigSky]

The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.

There are no human rights being violated.

The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.

[Sluff]

The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.

There are no human rights being violated.

The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.

It's too bad people just can not use common sense when others are around or in their cars, it forces the lawmakers to step in. It's a good law but I'm sorry it is still our government taking away our rights (civil liberties) as citizens. Same thing with gun laws and seatbelts etc etc. It is not a matter of keeping order anymore, it's a matter of forcing people to use common sense.

[skyedogrocks]

Unfortunately, you have some really stupid people in the world.

Personally, I think that this law is excellent and not banning human rights.  This is for the sake of children.  It really irks me when I see parents smoking in front of their kids.  I especially can't stand it when Mothers smoke while they are pregnant.

I have friends who smoke, but they have the common courtesy not to smoke in my house, car, etc.  The worst is when people smoke and just let it blow in other peoples faces.  That's just being rude.

The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.

There are no human rights being violated.

The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.

It's too bad people just can not use common sense when others are around or in their cars, it forces the lawmakers to step in. It's a good law but I'm sorry it is still our government taking away our rights (civil liberties) as citizens. Same thing with gun laws and seatbelts etc etc. It is not a matter of keeping order anymore, it's a matter of forcing people to use common sense.

Gun laws are a necessity.  I'm all for people having them if they choose.  However, even with all the background checks they do, people still get them and use them in the worst way possible.  I grew up with a gun and rifles in my house.  My Dad taught us kids not to play with them, that they are dangerous.  My FIL is an avid hunter, but he has his guns, rifles, etc. locked up.  Rob and I personally do not like guns, so we do not have them in our house. 

Some laws are just common sense and they are there to keep things in control. 

[okarol]

The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.

There are no human rights being violated.

The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.

It's too bad people just can not use common sense when others are around or in their cars, it forces the lawmakers to step in. It's a good law but I'm sorry it is still our government taking away our rights (civil liberties) as citizens. Same thing with gun laws and seatbelts etc etc. It is not a matter of keeping order anymore, it's a matter of forcing people to use common sense.

Common sense is not so common.

[Ken Shelmerdine]

The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.

There are no human rights being violated.

The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.

Of course human rights are being violated. If this law against smoking in cars with kids was just about the protection of kids then it's justified but it's not. It's part and parcel of the militant propaganda campain against those who choose to smoke.

What started out as a sensible restriction of smoking in certain public areas has now become an attack on smokers generally. How else can you justify for instance the the prohibition of smoking in certain open air public spaces. How can secondary smoke when it becomes diluted in air be of any risk. For God's sake  recognise a hoax when you see one or would you prefer to endorse it because it suits the purely selfish stance which the anti smoking lobby take in their efforts to crucify all who choose to smoke?

Indeed, the notion that tobacco smoke, heavily diluted in the atmosphere, can kill non-smokers is so implausible that the stop-smoking brigade has gone to exceptional lengths to foster a fear of 'passive smoking'. They have conducted, sponsored or quoted dozens of research projects to nail down this illusive phantom, but all fail the acid tests of objectivity and statistical significance. 

One of the few scientists who managed to publicise attempts to measure significant exposure to environmental tobacco smoke - in Swedish homes - was a toxicologist, Professor Robert Nilsson. Nilsson quoted findings that showed that non-smokers who consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke are smoking the equivalent of one cigarette a week to two cigarettes a year, which is hardly going to give the nation nightmares.

Yet only the most diligent or scrupulous students will have heard of such findings because, as Professor Nilsson explained, studies that produce the 'wrong' results (that is, unwelcome to the extensive anti-smoking network) do not get published. So the campaign of intimidation and suppression goes unchallenged.

[BigSky]

Of course human rights are being violated. If this law against smoking in cars with kids was just about the protection of kids then it's justified but it's not. It's part and parcel of the militant propaganda campain against those who choose to smoke.

Breathing smoke free air is a natural primary right and supersedes the secondary right to smoke and dirty air up.   So no right is truly being violated because since smoking is secondary it gets trumped as a right when compared to a primary right.

What started out as a sensible restriction of smoking in certain public areas has now become an attack on smokers generally. How else can you justify for instance the the prohibition of smoking in certain open air public spaces. How can secondary smoke when it becomes diluted in air be of any risk. For God's sake  recognise a hoax when you see one or would you prefer to endorse it because it suits the purely selfish stance which the anti smoking lobby take in their efforts to crucify all who choose to smoke?

Yes I am quite sure there are claims secondary smoke does not kill.   Just as it was has claimed for decades that tobacco causes no cancer and leads to no other help problems.   Hell it was even claimed they were healthy and good for you at one time.

[Joe Paul]

Whats next, ban pregnancy if you are a smoker?

[okarol]

Whats next, ban pregnancy if you are a smoker?

So you wouldn't advise against smoking while pregnant?

[Joe Paul]

Whats next, ban pregnancy if you are a smoker?

So you wouldn't advise against smoking while pregnant?

Lots more that can kill than smoke, sorry.

[charee]

Whats next, ban pregnancy if you are a smoker?

So you wouldn't advise against smoking while pregnant?

Lots more that can kill than smoke, sorry.

a new study just came out 90% of sudden infant death syndrome deaths , babies were born to mothers who smoked while pregnant, they are thinking of banning the sale of cigarettes to pregnant mothers

[glitter]

 I dont think pregnant mothers should smoke...but I do not think the government should be the moral police. When the government starts protecting us from ourselves...civil liberties are threatened and taken away. Is it a violation of a womans rights to force her to be on birth control if she's a smoker? what about a forceful abortion if she gets pregnant while being a smoker?  where does it end? Does that mean some women will make a bad choice? yes. glad they are still free to make a bad choice- before you know it the government will make all our choices for us, so we don't make the 'wrong' ones.

[charee]

i agree glitter anyway if they ban the sale to pregnant women someone else would probably buy them and as you said where would it stop

[goofynina]

I dont know how true this is but i heard that Christopher Reeves's wife died of lung cancer and never smoked a cigarette in her life BUT, she sang in smokey bars for years, coincidence? 

[Chris]

Didn't know Christopher Reeves had a sex change either
You must mean his wife.

[skyedogrocks]

I dont think pregnant mothers should smoke...but I do not think the government should be the moral police. When the government starts protecting us from ourselves...civil liberties are threatened and taken away. Is it a violation of a womans rights to force her to be on birth control if she's a smoker? what about a forceful abortion if she gets pregnant while being a smoker?  where does it end? Does that mean some women will make a bad choice? yes. glad they are still free to make a bad choice- before you know it the government will make all our choices for us, so we don't make the 'wrong' ones.

So, do you agree with the law that people under 18 shouldn't purchase cigarettes?

[skyedogrocks]

I dont know how true this is but i heard that Christopher Reeves's died of lung cancer and never smoked a cigarette in her life BUT, she sang in smokey bars for years, coincidence? 

Yes, I heard this too.  My sister's niece is only 33 years old and has lung cancer.  It's so bad that Chemo won't work on her.  She never smoked a day in her life, but her Dad smoked her whole life.  Her sister smokes too.  Ironic and very, very sad.

[glitter]

People in China are getting lung cancer (and other cancers) in record numbers- they beleive its from the severe pollution there. I have heard of people getting lung cancer who were never around smokers too.